tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post1507175453710763014..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Abiding in Christ and the Tragedy of Pernicious TheologyJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58940714721817614482011-11-12T16:15:49.732-06:002011-11-12T16:15:49.732-06:00No, I got the point. The problem is with your invo...No, I got the point. The problem is with your invocation of "the obvious contradiction between the statement and what else is generally known about the moon and about Armstrong." What else is "generally known" comes from testable sources which are independent of Armstrong's testimony. Without those, we'd be justified in disregarding his testimony. There isn't an analogous set of testable sources that confirm that Jesus could make accurate predictions about the distant future, so there is no "obvious contradiction."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19257266637290343292011-11-12T14:57:55.741-06:002011-11-12T14:57:55.741-06:00You missed the point, which is that in the parable...You missed the point, which is that in the parable Armstrong was misquoted due to clerical error, and the guy who relied on the propagated misquote drew an erroneous conclusion. The guy should have reserved judgment, given the obvious contradiction between the statement and what else is generally known about the moon and about Armstrong.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86515784803328186112011-11-12T12:43:49.044-06:002011-11-12T12:43:49.044-06:00False analogy. Armstrong's statement about the...False analogy. Armstrong's statement about the moon isn't the only testable claim about the moon landing. If it were, skepticism would be justified. In other words, if the only evidence for the moon landing were Armstrong's testimony, then we would be right to mistrust it. In contrast, Jesus's prediction about the end of the world is one of the few testable claims in the New Testament.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46211587659839267912011-11-12T12:07:33.862-06:002011-11-12T12:07:33.862-06:00A short parable:
Someone hears Neil Armstrong say...A short parable:<br /><br />Someone hears Neil Armstrong say, "The moon is not made of green cheese." He writes it down in his notebook for inclusion in a newspaper article he's writing about Armstrong's speech.<br /><br />The person who transcribes from the notebook to the computer is interrupted mid-task and inadvertently leaves out the word "not". The article, as published, reads: "Neil Armstrong was heard to say, 'The moon is made of green cheese.'"<br /><br />The article is picked up by the wire services and is published in the Seattle PI, the SF Chronicle, the LA Times, and Chicago Sun-Times. Nobody bothers to proof it beyond the first couple of paragraphs - it's boring stuff they've all read before. Another party collects the articles and triumphantly announces that the moon landing was faked, as proved by Armstrong's documented statement that he believes the moon to be made of green cheese. There are, after all, four published accounts to back the assertion, and all from different sources!<br /><br />Oops.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-62841034258685896072011-11-12T10:38:04.101-06:002011-11-12T10:38:04.101-06:00"In other words, I don't think the King J..."In other words, I don't think the King James rendition of those verses is an accurate transcription of what Jesus said."<br /><br />The original Greek says "this generation."<br /><br />"If 99.99% of the testimony is of the supernatural and 0.01% is of the natural, then it would be unreasonable."<br /><br />That isn't the case in the gospels. Most of the accounts have to do with Jesus' sayings and a portrayal of natural events. <br /><br />The Bible makes a set of claims about Jesus. Most of the claims, what you call the 99.99%, are unfalsifiable. Very few of the claims, among them the claim that Jesus is a true prophet (your claim, actually) are falsifiable. If only 0.01% of the Bible's claims are falsifiable and are falsified, is it reasonable to write them off as some sort of error because the other 99.99% are not falsified? No, because the 99.99% aren't falsifiable anyway. <br /><br />"On the one hand, he clearly stated that "no man knows" the hour of his second coming, not even the angels in heaven. He would not have then told them it would happen within a specific time period."<br /><br />There is nothing inconsistent with the statements "no man knows the hour" and "the end will come within a generation." I don't know your birthday, but I know that you will have one within a year. See how that works? <br /><br />"On the other hand, he was not in the habit of making false predictions. It was not consistent with his character or his track record."<br /><br />We can't know that because most of his predictions were about events that had already occurred by the time the gospels were written. The only fair way to test him is with predictions about events that would occur after the gospels were written. He fails on that account. <br /><br />"The four Gospels were written decades after the fact. It is reasonable to expect their authors worked from common sources to produce their verbatim accounts of what they had witnessed."<br /><br />Yes, it is. But if we're going to distrust the verbatim accounts of the falsified predictions, we should definitely distrust the verbatim accounts of the miracles. <br /><br />"Apparently God also saw the need, having been so badly misrepresented. That was one of the express reasons God gave for having called a prophet in the modern era."<br /><br />Hmm. Maybe you shouldn't be so intent on refuting the fact that Jesus made a false prediction in the Bible. It's a nice precedent for making a false prediction in the Doctrine and Covenants:<br /><br />"3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.<br /><br /> 4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-78797038463223254022011-11-12T10:01:53.495-06:002011-11-12T10:01:53.495-06:00Then why don't you?
I don't reject the wi...<i>Then why don't you?</i><br /><br />I don't reject the witness in either case. I reject the <i>evidence</i> of what was witnessed, bearing in mind its provenance, on the basis that it's inconsistent with the remainder of the record.<br /><br />In other words, I don't think the King James rendition of those verses is an accurate transcription of what Jesus said.<br /><br />The Latin Vulgate renders the word in question as <i>haec</i>, which has several translations to English. One of those translations is "the latter", which, if it had been used by King James' translators, would have made it consistent with Joseph Smith's correction: "Verily I say unto you, <i>the latter</i> generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."<br /><br /><i>Actually, it's not unreasonable to accept a witness's natural claims and reject his supernatural claims.</i><br /><br />If 99.99% of the testimony is of the supernatural and 0.01% is of the natural, then it would be unreasonable.<br /><br /><i>The claim that Jesus predicted an imminent end is perfectly consistent with the rest of the Bible internally.</i><br /><br />That is a false assertion in two senses.<br /><br />On the one hand, he clearly stated that "no man knows" the hour of his second coming, not even the angels in heaven. He would not have then told them it would happen within a specific time period. What he did tell them was that it would be accompanied by signs, and that the signs would reveal when his second coming was imminent. He admonishes all people of all ages to watch for those signs.<br /><br />On the other hand, he was not in the habit of making false predictions. It was not consistent with his character or his track record.<br /><br />To have some repeated text mistranslated multiple times produces consistency of translation, not consistency of content. (The four Gospels were written decades after the fact. It is reasonable to expect their authors worked from common sources to produce their verbatim accounts of what they had witnessed.)<br /><br /><i>The fact that he saw a need to change the wording should tell you something. People have been bothered by these verses for a long time.</i><br /><br />Apparently God also saw the need, having been so badly misrepresented. That was one of the express reasons God gave for having called a prophet in the modern era.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-50483477298335294532011-11-12T07:22:47.402-06:002011-11-12T07:22:47.402-06:00"If you reject the witnesses in the one case,..."If you reject the witnesses in the one case, to be consistent you must reject the witnesses in the other."<br /><br />Then why don't you? Actually, it's not unreasonable to accept a witness's natural claims and reject his supernatural claims. For example, the Roman historian Suetonius says that Vespasian healed a blind man by spitting in his eyes and a lame man by touching his heal. It's not unreasonable to reject those claims as fiction while accepting Suetonius's account of the historical aspects of Vespasian's life. But if you insist on an all-or-nothing approach to a historian's accuracy, then you must reject the miracle claims about Jesus as well as the claim that he predicted an imminent end. <br /><br />"If an ancient record that has passed through many hands and multiple languages is 99.99% consistent, it isn't reasonable to reject the 99.99% on the basis of the 0.01%."<br /><br />Again, you're confusing internal and external consistency. The claim that Jesus predicted an imminent end is perfectly consistent with the rest of the Bible internally. It's not consistent with the external evidence that the end didn't come. Is there external evidence that the miracles occurred? No, so we need not harmonize the claim that Jesus predicted the end with any external evidence either. So there's no need to harmonize it at all.<br /><br />"Those in the audience clearly could not have been the antecedent to the "this" in that phrase." <br /><br />That's right. Generation =/= apostles. But it's still "this generation" meaning the contemporaneous one. <br /><br />"Here's another interesting tidbit. Joseph Smith was inspired to make the following addition to the "this generation" phrase:..."<br /><br />Yes, I know. A lot of Joseph Smith's revelations were responses to criticism of the Bible. He was harmonizing. The fact that he saw a need to change the wording should tell you something. People have been bothered by these verses for a long time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-26813603434676447092011-11-11T20:25:52.928-06:002011-11-11T20:25:52.928-06:00Here's another interesting tidbit. Joseph Smit...Here's another interesting tidbit. Joseph Smith was inspired to make the following addition to the "this generation" phrase:<br /><br />"Verily, I say unto you, this generation, <i>in which these things shall be shown forth,</i> shall not pass away until all I have told you shall be fulfilled."<br /><br />Whether or not one believes Joseph Smith was a prophet, he provides a simple and plausible explanation as to why our Bibles read as they do - a small but relevant phrase was omitted somewhere along the way.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79802532225245726072011-11-11T20:22:15.803-06:002011-11-11T20:22:15.803-06:00Here's an interesting tidbit in Jesus' &qu...Here's an interesting tidbit in Jesus' "false" prediction of the end of the world.<br /><br />His audience on that occasion was not the general public - it was his "disciples", most likely the Apostles. When they question him about "the sign of thy coming", one of the very first things he predicts is this: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you."<br /><br />So, by the time he gets to the "this generation" phrase, the deaths of those in his audience have already been prophesied, and that before the second coming of Christ. Those in the audience clearly could not have been the antecedent to the "this" in that phrase.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22472502475535078802011-11-11T20:14:34.423-06:002011-11-11T20:14:34.423-06:00Can the historical claim be true and the miracle c...<i>Can the historical claim be true and the miracle claim false? Again, we have to question the reliability of the source, but this scenario is more probable than the converse simply because the natural is more probable than the supernatural, by definition.</i><br /><br />It isn't the probability of the event that is in question, but the credibility of the witnesses. If you reject the witnesses in the one case, to be consistent you must reject the witnesses in the other. They are <i>the same</i> witnesses. They are either reliable or they are not.<br /><br />In addition to - and perhaps greather than - the issue of the credibility of the witnesses is the issue of the provenance of the evidence that has survived the ages. If an ancient record that has passed through many hands and multiple languages is 99.99% consistent, it isn't reasonable to reject the 99.99% on the basis of the 0.01%. That's cherry picking. It is not cherry picking to go with the 99.99%, particularly if there are plausible explanations for the 0.01% - and there are plenty of error mechanisms in play throughout the history of the documents that make up what we call the Bible.<br /><br /><i>Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that if one accepts the miraculous claims as true, then one must also reject the claim that Jesus predicted the End of the world.</i><br /><br />What I've said is that the assertion that Jesus made a false prediction about the end of the world is inconsistent with the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament, and I wasn't the one who originally made that connection. As stated by one of the anonymi (you?) who commented earlier on this thread:<br /><br /><i>Ergo, Jesus was a false prophet, I don't follow him, end of story.</i>Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-73128745234394740672011-11-11T17:18:32.309-06:002011-11-11T17:18:32.309-06:00Pops,
First of all, I never claimed that Jesus wa...Pops,<br /><br />First of all, I never claimed that Jesus was a liar. I claim that he made a failed prediction. Hopefully you see the difference. You're the one who suggested that he lied in order to create a sense of anticipation in his followers. Remember?<br /><br />Second, you're confusing internal and external evidence. The preponderance of Biblical evidence suggests that Jesus and his early followers believed the End of the world was imminent. The claim that Jesus performed miracles does not contradict the claim that he predicted an imminent End of the world. Each claim is in the Bible, and neither is contradicted by other internal Biblical claims. <br /><br />Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that if one accepts the miraculous claims as true, then one must also reject the claim that Jesus predicted the End of the world. That doesn't make any sense because both are reported by the same sources. It's cherry picking to accept the sources' miracle claims as true and reject the same sources' claim that Jesus predicted an imminent end. If the source is wrong about Jesus predicting the End of the world, then why should we trust the source's miracle claims? <br /><br />Would you suggest that if I reject the supernatural claims in the Bible that I must also reject the natural historical claims in the Bible? I don't think so. The claim that Jesus predicted an imminent end is a natural, historical claim. The truth of that claim does not depend on the truth of the supernatural claims of the Bible. <br /><br />According to your logic, the miracle claim and the claim that Jesus predicted an imminent end cannot both be true. All right. Can the miracle claim be true and the historical claim false? It's possible but not probable. If the source isn't reliable enough to report natural things, it probably isn't reliable enough to report the supernatural. Can the historical claim be true and the miracle claim false? Again, we have to question the reliability of the source, but this scenario is more probable than the converse simply because the natural is more probable than the supernatural, by definition, Can both the historical claim and the miracle claim be false? Definitely. No contradiction there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-73903498688895486482011-11-11T15:17:09.396-06:002011-11-11T15:17:09.396-06:00So, what I'm hearing is that the record incont...So, what I'm hearing is that the record incontrovertibly proves that Jesus was a liar when it came to prophesying the date of his return (which, by the way, he clearly stated that no man would or could know). The same reasoning that makes the record of that particular statement accurate and true requires that one admit also the truth of the record that states that he was born of a virgin, walked on water, healed the sick, cast out devils, raised the dead, fed the 5000, correctly prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem, taught truth, forgave those who tortured and crucified him, paid the price of our sins, rose from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion, ascended into heaven in full view of many, and was in very fact God and the Son of God. That is, the record of those facts follows the same pattern you've used to justify the assertion that he was a liar.<br /><br />Now, the assertion that Jesus lied about his second coming contradicts the many other, weightier, things I listed, and many more that I omitted. What is the reasonable thing to do in such a case? The logical choice is to reject the one assertion that is out of place, the one that is inconsistent with the umpteen others, given that they all have equal and identical proof of their truth. And I do, in fact, reject it.<br /><br />That's not just a statistical procedure - it's common sense. You've strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-25528263034759705222011-11-11T09:56:09.421-06:002011-11-11T09:56:09.421-06:00Pops, this is the first time I've seen someone...Pops, this is the first time I've seen someone propose that we base our hermeneutics on the procedures of the statistician. That's quite original. I would cite it as evidence in favor of my belief that the contradictions in scripture (and the implausibility of a good deal of theology) are just as likely to be hermenutically <i>productive</i> as <i>destructive</i>. By this I mean that when they don't destroy one's faith entirely (as they did mine) they wind up driving the committed believer to finding creative interpretations to make them go away (and creative justifications for those interpretations).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-21458458614177259322011-11-11T09:25:19.361-06:002011-11-11T09:25:19.361-06:00I've shown you eight different New Testament r...I've shown you eight different New Testament references that predict the End of the World within a generation. Unless there are a greater number of New Testament references that contradict them, that is the preponderance of the evidence. But of course, there aren't. There isn't even one. So these are not "outliers."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8754538297293625932011-11-11T08:42:49.069-06:002011-11-11T08:42:49.069-06:00In statistical analysis, it is standard procedure ...In statistical analysis, it is standard procedure to reject outliers on the basis of the preponderance of the data. You (anonymous) seem intent on rejecting the preponderance of the data based on an outlier.<br /><br />When outliers are rejected, reasons for that data not being acceptable or representative are proposed. It is customary to propose multiple reasons when there are multiple mechanisms that might have caused the error. That is not a failure of logic. Quite the opposite.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39737466422640206422011-11-10T22:32:50.499-06:002011-11-10T22:32:50.499-06:00"John the Revelator still has not died. Appar..."John the Revelator still has not died. Apparently there were others."<br /><br />That's an additional explanation. You're making my point.<br /><br />The "preponderance of the Bible" does not contradict the expectation that the End of the world would occur within a generation of Jesus Christ. Can you name any scriptures that predict the end would occur after the contemporaneous generation had died off? <br /><br />"... it isn't reasonable to conclude that he lied on that occasion."<br /><br />You're the only one who suggested that. You suggested that Jesus may have used the words "this generation" in order to create a sense of anticipation despite the fact that the Second coming wouldn't occur in "this generation." That would be deceit. Logic is not your forte, is it?.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43952351819015294022011-11-10T21:23:44.797-06:002011-11-10T21:23:44.797-06:00This doesn't make sense to me. If Christ had w...<i>This doesn't make sense to me. If Christ had wanted to "create a mindset of anticipation" it would make far more sense to say this:<br /><br />"I'll be back, but I ain't saying when; could be next week, could be thousands of years from now."</i><br /><br />He was quoted as saying something to that effect: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."<br /><br /><i>To say the latter would be to create a sense of disappointment and theological crisis (which is in fact what ensued).</i><br /><br />The theological crisis resulted from the loss of authority and, with it, the loss of revelation to guide the Church.<br /><br /><i>Of course, to the true believer, to the person who's not going to let empirical reality impinge upon faith...</i><br /><br />If:<br /><br />a) what you mean by empirical reality means what we think might be true today, and refers to a tiny droplet of a factoid awash in an ocean of contrary evidence; and<br /><br />b) that faith derives from personal study and experience;<br /><br />then it would be foolish in the extreme to assume the "liar, liar, pants on fire" assertion has any merit.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1012563253158739152011-11-10T21:08:45.501-06:002011-11-10T21:08:45.501-06:00That single explanation doesn't cover Jesus...<i>That single explanation doesn't cover Jesus' saying that some "here" would not taste of death before the Second coming.</i><br /><br />John the Revelator still has not died. Apparently there were others.<br /><br /><i>Also, you're doing what you earlier denied doing: casting doubt on the accuracy of the Bible where it conflicts with your faith.</i><br /><br />No, it's casting doubt on the accuracy of the Bible where it conflicts with the preponderance of the Bible.<br /><br /><i>Well, which is it? Did he say it to keep everybody on their toes, or is it a scribal error as you suggested previously? I'm starting to think you don't care what he said, just as long as you can make it fit your preconceptions.</i><br /><br />Once again, it has to do with making it consistent with the preponderance of the Bible. Those who wrote the four gospels didn't view Jesus as a liar, for example. We can't know what he said for certain. I've provided a number of plausible explanations. We can't know which, if any, is correct. But given the entire body of evidence about who Jesus was, and the flimsiness of the assertion being made (flimsy in that it is based on hearsay raised to nth power), it isn't reasonable to conclude that he lied on that occasion.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23157320018923945812011-11-10T13:06:33.271-06:002011-11-10T13:06:33.271-06:00"Christ wanted all people of all generations ..."Christ wanted all people of all generations to watch for his Second Coming, regardless of whether they would be alive at his coming or not. He intentionally created a mindset of anticipation among his followers..."<br /><br />This doesn't make sense to me. If Christ had wanted to "create a mindset of anticipation" it would make far more sense to say this:<br /><br />"I'll be back, but I ain't saying when; could be next week, could be thousands of years from now."<br /><br />...than to say this:<br /><br />"I'll be back before this generation passes away."<br /><br />To say the latter would be to create a sense of disappointment and theological crisis (which is in fact what ensued).<br /><br />Of course, to the true believer, to the person who's not going to let empirical reality impinge upon faith, such disappointments are merely occasions for ever-more-creative interpretations, such as those presented here by Pops (not to mention a legion of other creative readers of scripture).<br /><br />-- EveningsunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18374834709851927132011-11-10T11:35:08.888-06:002011-11-10T11:35:08.888-06:00"Okay here's one explanation for them all..."Okay here's one explanation for them all to fit together: every account of Christ's words on that occasion where the "this" was recorded instead of "that" derived from the same written source."<br /><br />That single explanation doesn't cover Jesus' saying that some "here" would not taste of death before the Second coming. For that, you need the separate explanation that he was referring to John. It also doesn't explain Paul's saying in 1 Thessalonians or John's saying in Revelation. A single explanation, proffered by me and others, covers all these New Testament sayings. You require separate explanations for each. <br /><br />Also, you're doing what you earlier denied doing: casting doubt on the accuracy of the Bible where it conflicts with your faith. <br /><br />"Another factor that should be considered is that Christ wanted all people of all generations to watch for his Second Coming, regardless of whether they would be alive at his coming or not. He intentionally created a mindset of anticipation among his followers..."<br /><br />Well, which is it? Did he say it to keep everybody on their toes, or is it a scribal error as you suggested previously? I'm starting to think you don't care what he said, just as long as you can make it fit your preconceptions. That's the difference between apologetics and scholarship. I wouldn't stick with this one if I were you. It makes Jesus out to tell lies. We can never be sure of anything else he says. There are other ways to create anticipation that don't involve deception.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1088093704498927232011-11-10T10:18:42.757-06:002011-11-10T10:18:42.757-06:00Anon @ 12:22,
Some high school names just stick. ...Anon @ 12:22,<br /><br />Some high school names just stick. <br />I would like to know where Jesus states that uttering a prayer once is sufficient for salvation. If you are of the "once saved always saved" school of thought, this will also require a passage stating that this prayer is sufficient despite what a person does in life. This scripture will also need to clearly supersede all of Jesus' other teachings regarding salvation and, more specifically, judgment according to works. <br />Good luck.<br />Even if your paraphrased scripture reflected something that existed, your interpretation of it is the only thing resembling Timmy's prayer requirement. It says nothing of judgment, salvation, etc.Lamdaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550528525997628134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-49690830163826177252011-11-10T08:36:50.174-06:002011-11-10T08:36:50.174-06:00Okay here's one explanation for them all to fi...Okay here's one explanation for them all to fit together: every account of Christ's words on that occasion where the "this" was recorded instead of "that" derived from the same written source.<br /><br />Another factor that should be considered is that Christ wanted <i>all</i> people of <i>all</i> generations to watch for his Second Coming, regardless of whether they would be alive at his coming or not. He intentionally created a mindset of anticipation among his followers, perhaps no better illustrated than by the reaction of the Maya when European explorers first arrived in the Americas. Even though the Maya had by that time forgotten most of what Christ had taught them, they were <i>still</i> looking forward to his return.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60086647031494048582011-11-10T07:51:03.760-06:002011-11-10T07:51:03.760-06:00"I don't speak Aramaic or Greek - have yo..."I don't speak Aramaic or Greek - have you researched it?"<br /><br />Yes, they're different words in each language. <br /><br />"Whenever one evaluates an ancient text with the provenance of the Bible, one has to make allowances or reserve judgment in cases of apparent contradiction because many errors will creep into the document. "<br /><br />Not the same error three different times. I've shown you that what you dismiss as error occurs in multiple places in the New Testament. That makes it unlikely to be an error that crept in. What is the "apparent contradiction?" There isn't an internal contradiction; multiple New Testament authors agreed that the End of the world was imminent. The contradiction was external: the End of the World didn't come. But if you follow apocalyptic prophecies, you'll see that happens a lot.<br /><br />"But scholars today don't find it in older Greek manuscripts, and have proposed that perhaps it was inserted by scribes attempting to buttress the Nicene Creed."<br /><br />Are we appealing to scholarship now? What do scholars say about Jesus' belief that the End of the world was at hand? <br /><br />"I'm not sure I would stake my eternal fate on that one word."<br /><br />I haven't shown you just one word. I've shown you multiple examples from the New Testament. You require multiple explanations to dismiss each one. I require only one explanation for them to all fit together. Occam's razor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-17837795805833234192011-11-09T22:38:48.707-06:002011-11-09T22:38:48.707-06:00Pops, why is it a waste of time for me to comment ...Pops, why is it a waste of time for me to comment on this blog? I find it much less interesting to hang around only where everyone already agrees with me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-20155782867437682862011-11-09T22:29:10.844-06:002011-11-09T22:29:10.844-06:00my wireless program crashed today I wasn't abl...my wireless program crashed today I wasn't able to explain anything<br />timothy <br />please be patient and look for my next p o s tAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com